These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Clinical and patient estimation of fetal weight vs. ultrasound estimation.
    Author: Baum JD, Gussman D, Wirth JC.
    Journal: J Reprod Med; 2002 Mar; 47(3):194-8. PubMed ID: 11933683.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical and patient estimation of fetal weight to ultrasound estimation. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study of clinical, patient and ultrasound estimation of fetal weight at term. RESULTS: A total of 200 pregnant women participated. There was no statistically significant difference between clinical and sonographic estimates of fetal weight: of the estimates, 64.0% were within 10% of the actual birth weight vs. 62.5% (P > .2). There was no statistically significant difference between patient and sonographic estimates of fetal weight: of the estimates, 53.5% were within 10% of the actual birth weight vs. 62.5%, respectively (P < .1). Senior resident clinical and sonographic estimates of fetal weight were superior to junior resident estimates: 75.2% of clinical estimates were within 10% of the actual birth weight vs. 59.2% (P < .03), and 73.1% of sonographic estimates were within 10% of the actual birth weight vs. 58.3% (P < .05). Nulliparous and multiparous patients were equally accurate in estimating fetal weight: 48.1% of estimates were within 10% of birth weight vs. 57.4% (P > .2). CONCLUSION: Sonographic estimation of fetal weight offers no advantage over clinical or patient estimation of fetal weight at term. Senior resident clinical and sonographic estimates are superior to junior resident estimates. Parity has no effect on patient accuracy in estimating fetal weight.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]